"By saying so, you've made a judgement excusing her actions by saying that circumstances could arise in which the sadistic mutilation of human beings is justified and that hers may have been such a circumstance."
Nope, I just said that I would leave it up to her contemporaries (and obviously, to God) to judge her, not me. Just because I don't know that I would do it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong, which is the opposite of what you are saying.
"I'm afraid I'd have to say the point has rather been lost by you, since you don't address it."
It's been addressed more than once, you just don't agree with the answer.
"Such values are not similar to mine, nor to those of most other people. It can be argued that it took a level of savagery and uncivilized behavior to tame this continent, and I won't argue with that. "
Read some history. The settlers didn't delight in the tortures like the Indians did. There is definitely a huge difference between the two groups if you take the time to find out.
"Attempting to portray such acts as somehow better than that of the Indians is illogical and ethically weak, however."
Anyone who claims to be on a higher moral plane based on a story like this is the one who is being illogical and ethically weak. Read some history from that time period, it might surprise you what they did to lawbreakers, much less savages, back then. You will find yourself even more at odds with the settlers and especially the founders of this country.